"Giving leaders enough power to
create ‘social justice' is giving them enough power to destroy all
justice, all freedom, and all human dignity."
Thomas
Sowell

History shows us that
as free nations become complacent, they become vulnerable to manipulation.
Most dictatorships rise gradually—a step at a time. Smooth-talking
politicians make each incremental step seem reasonable, because the masses
are blind to the tides of change.

We have been warned
over and over. But sadly, a time comes when the wisdom of the watchmen is no
longer heeded:

“Eternal
vigilance is the price of liberty.” (Wendell Phillips)

“Those
who cannot remember the past are con­demned to repeat it.” (George
Santayana)

“The greater the
power, the more dangerous the abuse.” (Edmund Burke)

Austria illustrates
the power of gradualism. In 1933, it was a free nation. In 1934, its
government began to centralize its power and welcome the influence of Nazi
sympathizers. By 1938, it had become a Nazi dictatorship.

The downward slide
began with one crisis after another. A third of the people were out of work,
inflation rose to 25%, and political turmoil caused civil unrest. People
longed for a leader to rescue them. Adolf Hitler cam­paigned in Austria,
promising to solve their problems if they were annexed to Germany. A
persuasive speaker, he gave them hope and won their hearts. The Austrian
people voted him in.[1]

Why? How could the
Austrians be so blind? The answer is simple: they faced hard times, so they
chose to believe Hitler’s promises. They didn’t see him as we do—brutal,
arrogant, narcissistic and ruthlessly ambitious. That image came later, when
it was too late to escape his grasp.

In the beginning,
Hitler appeared as a caring, charis­matic, captivating visionary.[2] His
words brought hope of prosperity, and his public image was intentionally
shaped with pictures of his smiles, benevolent deeds and warm encounters
with children and babies.[3]

After the annexation,
new government jobs were created and order was restored. The people were
encouraged and hopeful, and—for a short while—the nation prospered. Then it
crashed. This transformation is described by Kitty Werthmann, who lived in
Austria when it was ruled by the Nazis:[4]

“Dictatorship did not happen overnight. It was a gradual process starting
with national identification cards, which we had to carry with us at all
times.”

Next came gun
registration, followed by attacks on freedom of speech. There were so many
informers that people became afraid to say anything political, even when
they were in their own homes.

She tells of other
changes, including nationalization of education; indoctrination of children;
socialized medicine; government control of businesses; and a lack of respect
for human life. Before the annexation, most Austrian mothers stayed at home
to take care of their children. Under Nazi rule, both parents had to work,
so the children were sent to government‑run daycare centers.

Gun control came in two
stages. First there was gun registration, and then the people were required
to give up their guns. Once the people were unarmed, they had no way of
defending themselves against the Nazis. After that, political correctness
replaced freedom of speech; taxes were increased to eighty percent (four
fifths of income); the nation was filled with informers; anybody who spoke
against the government was arrested; and the people lived in constant fear.

In Austria, the
transformation from freedom to dictator­ship was incremental. No nation is
immune to such things, including the United States. In fact, America seems
to be following some of the same incremental steps toward totalitarianism.

National Identification Cards

In 2005, Congress
passed the Real ID Act. This, in effect, would turn drivers’ licenses into a
national ID card. However, the law is controversial, and 17 states have
passed legislation or resolutions opposing compliance with it.[5]

Congress eventually
repealed the law. However, there are ongoing attempts to do things that are
similar, but not as comprehensive. According to an article dated March 28,
2013, Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham are determined to get a
biometric national ID card required for everybody who is employed. And this
is so important that they met with President Obama to discuss the matter.[6]

Nationalizing Education and Indoctrinating
Young Children

Kitty Werthmann told
us how Hitler nationalized the education system. Christian symbols were
removed and prayer was banned. Through their government‑run child care
program, the Nazis would indoctrinate the children with politically correct
ideology and absolute loyalty to Hitler. Hitler worship became part of the
new structure. The daycare workers were trained in Marxist psychology, not
motherly love, for Hitler was fascinated with communist methods of mind
control.

Children idolized
Hitler and sang his praises. Some American children have been taught to do
the same for Obama. I have seen videos of young children singing Obama’s
praises with adoration, and teenagers singing his praises quite militantly.
I have also seen a video of a young boy praying to Obama. (Once such videos
become controver­sial then they tend to disappear from YouTube, so you might
have difficulty finding them.)

America is also a
nation where prayer is no longer allowed in school, and daycare is common.
Obama is centralizing the public schools. His administration is completing a
process begun in the nineties during the first Bush administration. A
national curriculum with national standards, national tests, and a national
database is fast becoming a reality. The goal is to provide
“cradle‑to‑career education for all of America’s children.” The federal
government is encouraging the states to provide children with “early
learning experiences from birth through kindergarten entry.” [7]

By imposing government
education at such a young age, this un‑American system exposes Christian
children to the worldviews of secular humanism, neo‑paganism, and countless
other beliefs that clash with home‑taught values. It subjects them to
anti‑Christian peer pressure, and to teachers who are determined to
undermine their faith. No wonder children raised in Christian homes from
coast to coast are fast rejecting our God and His ways. Meanwhile, churches
and youth leaders are bending over backwards to conform to the new values
and wants of our youth.

Government schools and
the judicial system work hand‑in‑hand to undermine the faith of Christian
children. For example, Amanda is a ten‑year‑old Christian homeschooler. She
is “well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically
promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level.” Her homeschool
curriculum meets all state standards. Yet, a judge has ordered her to attend
public school because of her “vigorous defense of her religious beliefs.”
The judge wants her to consider “different points of view at a time when she
must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief.”[8] In other
words, he is forcing her into government education in order to challenge her
Christian faith.

Buried inside the
health care bill is a provision that gives the federal government control
over all student loans. As a result, the government can now decide which
students are able to go to college. It can also refuse loans for students
who want to attend colleges that the government doesn’t approve of, thus
putting financial pressure on colleges to be politically correct.[9]

New federal regulations
would enable the federal government to control the accreditation of all U.S.
colleges. According to former U.S. Senator Bill Armstrong, “the Department
of Education is attempting to subject every college and university in
America—public and private—to political supervision.”[10]

Government Control of Health Care and
Businesses

Obama’s massive health
care bill established government control of health care, which is one sixth
of the nation’s economy. Its regulation will have a devastating effect on
the medical profession. Why would bright students want to invest in medical
school when the pay would be minimal and medical “murder” would be mandated?
My foot doctor told me, “Obama wants to make me retire early.” My general
practitioner told me, “Let me take care of you while I still can.”

The federal government
is wielding an increasing degree of control over busi­nesses, both directly
and through regula­tions. Obama’s destructive control over Chrysler has been
called “another extraordinary intervention into private in­dustry by the
federal government.” As a result, many car dealerships were closed.[11]
According to an attorney who represents some of those dealers, Chrysler
closed them because it was “under enor­mous pressure from the President’s
automotive task force.”[12]

Treating People Like Livestock

Farmers can kill
animals that are born sickly or become too old to be productive. Likewise,
Hitler talked about getting rid of “useless eaters.” In modern America, some
“experts” want to dispose of people with a poor “quality of life.”

Kitty Werthmann told
how the Nazis killed the mentally retarded people in her village. That was a
result of Hitler’s eugenics program. He was following the unconscionable
Darwinian ideals of an evolving, purified human race, and he wanted to
produce a Master Race of strong, intelligent Aryans. People he considered to
be inferior (including Jews and the mentally retarded) had to be
eliminated.[13]

Because of the
Holocaust, eugenics was discredited. However, euthanasia (both voluntary and
involuntary) is spreading. Voluntary euthanasia is a form of suicide, where
patients choose to die—usually with a physician’s help. This is legal in
Oregon and Washington.[14]

Involuntary euthanasia
is based on new, convenient medical standards. In Holland, where thousands
of patients have been killed against their will, some elderly people are
afraid to go to the hospital.[15] A concerned Belgian citizen warned Western
nations to guard themselves against “the encroaching euthanasia agenda.”[16]

An influential
bioethicist in the Obama administration actively promotes health care
rationing.[17] Obama’s health care law includes “death panels” with
authority to deny life‑saving medical care.[18] Once such care has been
denied, it becomes unavailable even to patients who would pay the cost
themselves.

Gun Control

U.S. Attorney General
Eric Holder has a long record of supporting gun control. In a 2008 brief to
the Supreme Court, Holder claimed that the Second Amendment does not pose
any obstacle to banning guns.[19]

Since the shooting at
Sandy Hook, the attempts at gun control have increased in both variety and
intensity.

Obama has initiated a
back‑door approach to gun control by means of an international treaty known
as CIFTA. President Clinton signed this treaty in 1997 but the Senate
refused to ratify it. Now President Obama is promoting it. According to John
Bolton (former U.S. representative of the United Nations):

“…there’s no doubt—as
was the case over a decade ago—that the real agenda is the control of
domestic arms.”[20]

Enforcing
Political Correctness

President Obama has
co‑sponsored a United Nations resolu­tion that calls on countries to
criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that
constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Since the
President of the United States is backing the resolution, then Americans
will be expected to abide by it. As a result, this U.N. resolu­tion would
take priority over our constitutional right to free speech. In addition, as
Robert Spencer said:

“‘Incitement’ and ‘hatred’ are in the eye of the beholder—or more precisely,
in the eye of those who make such determinations.”[21]

As a result, people in
power can silence those who disagree with them by classifying their
statements as “hate speech.”

In 2008, a Commissioner
of the Federal Communi­cations Commission warned that the FCC is likely to
imple­ment regulations that will give the federal government control over
the content of radio, TV, and the Internet.[22]

In 2009, a high‑ranking
official in the FCC called for a “confrontational movement” to increase
federal control of the media.[23] He openly expressed admiration for Hugo
Chavez’ efforts to stifle criticism by seizing control of Venezuela’s
media.[24]

The Chairman of the FCC
is “poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated
industries.”[25] In other words, the media must be controlled by the
government:

“Mr. Genachowski suggested that
government red tape will increase the ‘freedom’ of online services that have
flourished because bureaucratic busy­bodies have been blocked from tinkering
with the Web.”[25]

An FCC Commissioner
named Michael Copps has proposed a plan: a “public value test” for media.
Who will pass that government test? Those who don’t will not get their
licenses renewed.

“Copps
declared FCC adoption of his Public Values Test would provide an antidote to
the current state of affairs by requiring: more diversity… enhanced
dis­closure of information”[26]

This reminds me of the
difference between Russian Communism and Hitler’s National Socialism. Stalin
ended up with a very poor country. Hitler’s socialism allowed for government
controlled “free” enterprise, and at first it seemed to succeed. The
difference between the two forms of tyrannical socialism was that Stalin’s
government owned everything, while Hitler controlled everything.

Informers

In 2002, the federal
government attempted to recruit four percent of the population as informers.
These spies were to include people with access to homes and businesses, such
as mailmen, meter readers, cable installers, and telephone repairmen.[27]
After a public outcry, this plan was abandoned. However, the attempt to have
informants throughout the country is not new. It has continued in various
ways, for years.[28]

As part of President
Clinton’s war on “hate crimes,” the Justice Department had a website that
encouraged children to report relatives who made a “derogatory comment.”[29]
Now that Congress has passed the “Hate Crimes” bill, we need to be alert to
similar attempts to turn children into informers.

A “smartphone” is a
wireless, pocket‑sized computer that also functions as a cell phone.[30] It
can take pictures. [31] The iPhone is a line of Internet smartphones
produced by Apple Computer. People can get “applications” (“apps”) for it,
enabling them to do a wide variety of things, including GPS navigation and
social networking.[32] A person could use their iPhone to take a picture,
get the precise location of the place (via GPS), and send the picture and
location information to somebody via email, or post it on the Internet.

A new “app” for iPhones
enables citizens to spy on one another and report directly to several
federal agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Justice.[33]
Although this “app” is promoted as a means of preventing terrorism, these
spying citizens are also encouraged to report on things such as
“environmental negligence” and “discrimination.”[34]

The Ability to Arrest People at Will

The President can
legally declare a state of national emer­gency on his own authority without
the approval of Congress. There is no legal accountability. Once a national
emergency has been declared, the President can “take over all govern­ment
functions” and “direct all private sector activities” until he declares that
the national emergency is over.[35]

A Master Arrest Warrant
enables the U.S. Attorney General to have people arrested if he personally
considers them to be “dangerous to the public peace and safety.” He can keep
these people incarcerated indefinitely without legal accountability.[36]

According to a U.S.
Congressman, former Rep. Henry Gonzalez, there are detention camps in
America. He said that, in the name of stopping terrorism, the President
could evoke the military and arrest American citizens and put them in these
camps.[37]

If American troops are
unwilling or unable to carry out such arrests, then the President can use
Canadian troops, thanks to a military agreement called the Civil Assistance
Plan.[38] The President can also use troops from the United Nations.[39]

In 2009, a bill in
Congress (H.R. 645) required the Department of Homeland Security to
establish at least six more detention camps on military installations. It
also appears to further expand the president’s emergency power.[40] Jerome
Corsi observes:

“We are
talking about a slippery slope: camps being prepared to be used in
emergencies can easily be used to imprison dissenters.”[41]

The bill failed to
pass. However, it was introduced again on January 23, 2013 as H.R. 390. It
failed to pass, but I suspect that they will try again. Also it might be
possible to bypass Congress and do it by means of an executive order.

Further Increasing Federal Power

The Obama
administration’s Financial Reform Bill was signed into law on July 21, 2010.
It establishes an Office of Financial Research which would have
“unprecedented, real‑time access to a wealth of personal and corporate
financial data.”[42] This new agency would not be accountable to anyone, and
it could use coercion to get information.[43]

The Senate has a bill
which would give the federal government much more control over our food
supply. It threatens to increase food prices and drive many small local
suppliers out of business.[44] Even without this new law, Federal agents
have already harassed small farms. In April 2010, they invaded a private
dairy that doesn’t sell to the public.[45]

The Federal Trade
Commission and the Federal Com­munications Commission are discussing ways to
regulate what Americans are able to read and hear. These proposed
regulations “would apply across the board to print media, radio and
television, and the internet.”[46]

In July 2, 2008,
presidential candidate Obama said that the military is not sufficient for
our national security. He said:

“We’ve
got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just
as strong, just as well‑funded.”[47]

In March 2009,
President Obama again discussed the need for a Civilian National Security
Force.[48]

One approach to this is
via Obama’s Health Care law. It establishes a Ready Reserve Corps that would
be subject to “involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies
and public health crises.”[49] An article giving details about this corps is
titled “Obama Just Got His Private Army.”[50]

Another approach is the
Universal National Service Act. If passed, this bill would require every
American (including young mothers) from ages 18 to 42 to spend two years
either serving in the military or doing national service as defined by the
President.[51] The bill contains some provisions that could be used to
promote a globalist agenda.[52]

A National Security
Letter (NSL) enables the FBI and other federal agencies to require people to
give them information without “probable cause” or judicial oversight. Under
the Patriot Act, the NSL includes a “gag order.”[53] According to Judge
Andrew Napolitano, this makes it a crime for people to speak the truth. He
said:

“If an
FBI agent shows up at your house with a self‑written search warrant, the
agent will tell you, you may not tell anyone about this.”[54]

According to Judge
Napolitano, if a person whose home was searched in this way was questioned
in court about it, under oath, he would not be able to answer truthfully
without violating the Patriot Act. In other words, he would have to either
commit perjury or else violate the Patriot Act.

Bypassing Congress and Ruling by Executive
Regulations

On December 23, 2010,
the Department of Interior issued a Secretarial Order giving itself the
authority to designate public lands as “Wild Lands.” On the same day, the
Environmental Protection Agency announced that it will impose carbon
emission regulations on power plants and oil refineries. This is “another
power grab effectively enacting what Congress had firmly rejected when
presented as cap‑and‑trade legislation.”[55]

The Washington Post
wrote an article about these executive power grabs. It said:

“The
move… demonstrated that the Obama admin­is­tra­tion is prepared to push its
environmental agenda through regulation where it has failed on Capitol
Hill.”[56]

Accuracy in Media
called The Washington Post’s article “matter‑of‑fact reporting about
lawlessness by the federal government.” It called this a reflection of the
sad state of American journalism, saying:

“There
was no hint that this approach is illegal or unconstitutional. The account
simply assumes that the Obama Administration can do what it wants, no matter
what Congress or the law says.”[57]

These administrative
power grabs reflect the advice given in a recent report written by the
Center for American Progress, which is funded by George Soros. The report is
titled “The Power of the President: Recommendations to Advance Progressive
Change.”[58]

The original health
care bill contained mandatory end‑of‑life counseling. Many saw this as being
a slippery slope that could lead to “death panels.” Because of the
controversy, Congress removed the provision from the bill. But now
end‑of‑life counseling has crept back in through a new Medicare
regulation.[59] Once again, the Obama adminis­tration has used regulatory
fiat to bypass the will of Congress and the American people. Charles
Krauthammer said:

“These
regulatory power plays make political sense… How better to impose a liberal
agenda on a center-right nation than regulatory stealth?”[60]

Inceasing Militarization of the Police

Policemen used to be
“peace officers” who served and protected the public. However, the new trend
is to become increasingly militarized, including using SWAT teams for minor
offenses, and traumatizing families in the process. For example, in 2008, a
SWAT team with semi‑automatic rifles raided a rural home and food co‑op,
holding the family (including small children) at gunpoint for hours.[61

These days, some
policemen dress and act like soldiers, complete with military-looking
vehicles. You can read about the extent of what is going on, and how this
trend developed, in Radley Balko’s book Rise of the Warrior Cop: The
Militarization of America’s Police Forces, which was published in July
2013.